An unverified photo from a Korean Apple forum claims to detail the rumored iPad 3's display, and reveals a subtle change from the iPad 2 that could suggest a higher resolution panel is being sourced for the upcoming tablet.

An image published to a Korean forum (via MacRumors) on Friday claims to be a photo of the much rumored iPad 3's high-resolution display, showing a component that has three ribbon cable connectors instead of the two found on current iterations of the device.

Little to no information accompanied the photo, however it is believed that the image is a comparison shot of a current iPad 2 panel sitting above an alleged iPad 3 display. Clearly illustrated are the three ribbon cables attached to the new component in a totally new configuration.

While the iPad 2's cables are known to be for power and data transfer, the extra cable in the photo is thought to provide for the bandwidth necessary to power a display capable of Retina display-like resolutions.

Recent reports have suggested that Apple will be using an IGZO panel capable of a 330 dots-per-inch resolution, and are in line with a The Wall Street Journal claim that Apple had invested a substantial amount of capital in Sharp's LCD manufacturing facilities.

Apple is rumored to be releasing the new tablet sometime in early 2012 and may include a next-generation A6 processor along with the suggested Retina Display.

So we have what might be the iPad 2 display, might not, above a display that might be the iPad 3 display or might be an iPad 2 display but someone flipped over the little connector bar so folks can't see where they glued on another copper piece, or it might be something not Apple at all. All turned off so we can't really tell anything about any of them.

This would be typical of Apple. Introduce a pointlessly higher-resolution screen (wasting memory and processing resources) instead of addressing the two problems that plague the current screens:

1. GLOSS. Apple continues to embarrass itself with ignorant glossy screens. Since when does a "leader" take cues from the third-tier plastic schlock being peddled at Best Buy? If you're Apple, since about five years ago. Meanwhile, E-readers clearly demonstrate the superiority of matte screens. Glossy screens are the biggest regression in the history of consumer computing.

2. Polarization angle, which makes the iPad's screen blank in portrait orientation with good (polarized) sunglasses. Most mobile applications (and vehicle mounts, like a pilot's kneeboard) call for the device to be upright (in portrait orientation); and in these environments people are often wearing sunglasses. But Apple has failed to have its manufacturer polarize the screen at the appropriate angle. Therefore, it's only visible in landscape orientation:

This needs to be reversed. It makes no sense to give priority to landscape orientation for sunglass-wearers. They're not watching movies with sunglasses on.

This would be typical of Apple. Introduce a pointlessly higher-resolution screen (wasting memory and processing resources) instead of addressing the two problems that plague the current screens:

1. GLOSS. Apple continues to embarrass itself with ignorant glossy screens. Since when does a "leader" take cues from the third-tier plastic schlock being peddled at Best Buy? If you're Apple, since about five years ago. Glossy screens are the biggest regression in the history of consumer computing.

2. Polarization angle, which makes the iPad's screen blank in portrait orientation with good (polarized) sunglasses. Most mobile applications (and vehicle mounts, like a pilot's kneeboard) call for the device to be upright (in portrait orientation). But Apple has failed to have its manufacturer polarize the screen at the appropriate angle. Therefore, it's only visible in landscape orientation:

This would be typical of Apple. Introduce a pointlessly higher-resolution screen (wasting memory and processing resources) instead of addressing the two problems that plague the current screens:

1. GLOSS. Apple continues to embarrass itself with ignorant glossy screens. Since when does a "leader" take cues from the third-tier plastic schlock being peddled at Best Buy? If you're Apple, since about five years ago. Glossy screens are the biggest regression in the history of consumer computing.

2. Polarization angle, which makes the iPad's screen blank in portrait orientation with good (polarized) sunglasses. Most mobile applications (and vehicle mounts, like a pilot's kneeboard) call for the device to be upright (in portrait orientation). But Apple has failed to have its manufacturer polarize the screen at the appropriate angle. Therefore, it's only visible in landscape orientation:

I wouldn't say that an extra ribbon connector was a "subtle" change. Does anyone happen to know if autostereoscopic displays need separate video feeds like this for left and right data? You see where I'm going with this . . . ?

I wouldn't say that an extra ribbon connector was a "subtle" change. Does anyone happen to know if autostereoscopic displays need separate video feeds like this for left and right data? You see where I'm going with this . . . ?

Yeah, because demand for iPad has dwindled to the point that they feel putting useless gimmicks like 3D into it is the only way to prop up sales now?

3D devices have already failed. It's been two or three consecutive years now that the manufacturers have been pushing 3D TV's and gaming machines down everyone's throat and pretty much no one has bought into the idea yet.

It's a gimmick. It was a gimmick in the 1950's when it first came out, a gimmick in the 1970's when it was also "the next big thing" and a gimmick today. It's not even new technology. It's accomplished using basically the same basic methods as were used in the 50's.

If you are really into buying 3D gear though don't worry. It will take a few more years to die out so you can still buy all your stuff now. It should come around again in 2040 also.

I wouldn't say that an extra ribbon connector was a "subtle" change. Does anyone happen to know if autostereoscopic displays need separate video feeds like this for left and right data? You see where I'm going with this . . . ?

No way is 3D being added, and no one on Earth makes TEN INCH, 2048x1536 autostereoscopic panels.

Yeah, because demand for iPad has dwindled to the point that they feel putting useless gimmicks like 3D into it is the only way to prop up sales now?

3D devices have already failed. It's been two or three consecutive years now that the manufacturers have been pushing 3D TV's and gaming machines down everyone's throat and pretty much no one has bought into the idea yet.

It's a gimmick. It was a gimmick in the 1950's when it first came out, a gimmick in the 1970's when it was also "the next big thing" and a gimmick today. It's not even new technology. It's accomplished using basically the same basic methods as were used in the 50's.

If you are really into buying 3D gear though don't worry. It will take a few more years to die out so you can still buy all your stuff now. It should come around again in 2040 also.

Well, I guess we know where you stand on the issue.

I agree that 3D is a gimmick, but so is photography, color photography, movies, color and sound movies, etc. The difference between now and the 50s is a little thing called digital.

Photographing space and texture are imperatives, not luxuries. But you don't have to watch, that's your choice.

Yeah, because demand for iPad has dwindled to the point that they feel putting useless gimmicks like 3D into it is the only way to prop up sales now?

3D devices have already failed. It's been two or three consecutive years now that the manufacturers have been pushing 3D TV's and gaming machines down everyone's throat and pretty much no one has bought into the idea yet.

It's a gimmick. It was a gimmick in the 1950's when it first came out, a gimmick in the 1970's when it was also "the next big thing" and a gimmick today. It's not even new technology. It's accomplished using basically the same basic methods as were used in the 50's.

If you are really into buying 3D gear though don't worry. It will take a few more years to die out so you can still buy all your stuff now. It should come around again in 2040 also.

3D is a gimmick, but so is photography, color photography, movies, color and sound movies, etc.

Comparing the current implementations of 3D to today's arguably mature and non-gimmicky categories of photography and movies is plain silly. 3D is a joke. It is a novelty, and a lame one at that. Movies are intended to transport you into another world, another time, another circumstance, etc. 3D does only one thing really well: it rips you out of the medium and slams you right back into reality, reminding you that you're just watching a silly screen with silly hardware on your face after paying stupid money to get an inferior experience which you're now trying desperately to convince yourself wasn't a huge waste of your paycheck. Only, it was.

So you got duped, just like me. The question is, will you make the same mistake twice, or get yourself royally screwed by spending inordinate amounts of money on a home theatre setup that's just as 3D and just as lame?

In terms of content, it's not really gonna change. Movie quality has been trending downward for a good long while now. When the best blockbusters Hollywood has to offer are already in 3D and people don't really care, it makes me think that's not the issue.

What would have made people accept 3D is lack of glasses. Who wants to wear glasses to watch a movie/tv/game/whatever? And what about the people who ALREADY wear glasses?

This would be typical of Apple. Introduce a pointlessly higher-resolution screen (wasting memory and processing resources) instead of addressing the two problems that plague the current screens:

1. GLOSS. Apple continues to embarrass itself with ignorant glossy screens. Since when does a "leader" take cues from the third-tier plastic schlock being peddled at Best Buy? If you're Apple, since about five years ago. Meanwhile, E-readers clearly demonstrate the superiority of matte screens. Glossy screens are the biggest regression in the history of consumer computing.

2. Polarization angle, which makes the iPad's screen blank in portrait orientation with good (polarized) sunglasses. Most mobile applications (and vehicle mounts, like a pilot's kneeboard) call for the device to be upright (in portrait orientation); and in these environments people are often wearing sunglasses. But Apple has failed to have its manufacturer polarize the screen at the appropriate angle. Therefore, it's only visible in landscape orientation:

This needs to be reversed. It makes no sense to give priority to landscape orientation for sunglass-wearers. They're not watching movies with sunglasses on.

1. e-readers as in e-ink you mean? Honestly I see glossy matte issues - i pay more for matte MacBooks, but i hardly think "embarrassment" is appropriates- Apple had to choose - many like the choice - some do not
2. When one uses an iPad (by the passenger of course) for navigation while driving - Navigon for example - navigation is better in landscape mode - I think Apple got it right!

This would be typical of Apple. Introduce a pointlessly higher-resolution screen (wasting memory and processing resources) instead of addressing the two problems that plague the current screens:

Glossy (as you call them) screens have been the single biggest advancement to LCD technology in history. Beyond that a touch screen isn't going to hold up to well if made of soft materials matte screens are made of.

Quote:

1. GLOSS. Apple continues to embarrass itself with ignorant glossy screens. Since when does a "leader" take cues from the third-tier plastic schlock being peddled at Best Buy? If you're Apple, since about five years ago. Meanwhile, E-readers clearly demonstrate the superiority of matte screens. Glossy screens are the biggest regression in the history of consumer computing.

Apple set the bench mark for tablets. By the way E-readers are not tablets, at least not in the sense of an iPad as the definition of a tablet device.

Quote:

2. Polarization angle, which makes the iPad's screen blank in portrait orientation with good (polarized) sunglasses. Most mobile applications (and vehicle mounts, like a pilot's kneeboard) call for the device to be upright (in portrait orientation); and in these environments people are often wearing sunglasses. But Apple has failed to have its manufacturer polarize the screen at the appropriate angle. Therefore, it's only visible in landscape orientation:

Too lazy to lift those glasses?

Quote:

This needs to be reversed. It makes no sense to give priority to landscape orientation for sunglass-wearers. They're not watching movies with sunglasses on.

Maybe they do? What do you think pilots do in the cockpit for all those hours. Even if you get a stewardess to jump you bones, that at best only lasts for an hour or two. So they watch movies, play games or whatever and then over shoot the airport by 20 minutes. It is a reality of modern flight that pilots don't do much these days in the cockpit.

The Air France crash in the Alantic awhile ago points this out completely. With a dead navigational system and the autopilot discountected the pilots didn't have the skill required to recover the plane.

The old Prof pretty much summed it up and left no loose ends. I've gone to many movies over the years and frankly have only had a couple of positive 3D experiences. It just isn't a experience worth paying for.

The Air France crash in the Alantic awhile ago points this out completely. With a dead navigational system and the autopilot discountected the pilots didn't have the skill required to recover the plane.

For starters, I wanna go on record saying that the idiots flying that plane were the cause of the accident, not the airplane. That's been proven by the "black boxes" that were finally recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic. In fact, the airspeed instrumentation failure was temporary, and was working just fine when they actually crashed. The navigation system was NEVER a problem. The way they "tried" to recover that airplane would have caused a crash in even the most basic airplane. It's hard to imagine what they might have been thinking, as the idiot in the right seat responded exactly opposite of how he was trained to.
Do some actual research about what happened, it'll keep you from looking quite so stupid.

As for the glossy/matte argument... I think Apple did it right... there are people that like each category. If you like glossy, then use it as is. If you want matte, it's as simple as a "screen protector".
If it started out matte though, there'd be no way to make it glossy.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

I agree 100% with the comment about quality, it is like Hollywood has lost its soul or has been taken over by the occupy movement. Nothing good and original has come from that part of the world for a few years now. Instead we get a constant stream of remakes, half baked rewrites of fairly good novels and a bunch of senseless drivel.

Now the latest move seems to be to reach into the old catalog of movies and play them again Sam. Not that I'm against that but it seems to be done from a condition of weakness rather than strength. In case you are wondering one of the movies coming back to the big screen is Titanic.

I'm to the point now that I actually believe that 3D movies actually result Ina negative impact at the box offices. Think about it they want to charge you more for an experience that is notably less satisfying!

3D for the most part is a rip off! More importantly Hollywood has lost its mojo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

In terms of content, it's not really gonna change. Movie quality has been trending downward for a good long while now. When the best blockbusters Hollywood has to offer are already in 3D and people don't really care, it makes me think that's not the issue.

What would have made people accept 3D is lack of glasses. Who wants to wear glasses to watch a movie/tv/game/whatever? And what about the people who ALREADY wear glasses?

That could quite possibly be used to kill two birds with one stone. Circularly polarised light won't be blocked by your glasses and incoming light that is bounced off either the panel surface or the glass panel, can be linearly polarised. Then they just put a perpendicularly polarised layer to block reflected light allowing the circularly polarised light to be emitted.

This may in fact explain the 3rd cable. While a retina display would be nice, it's probably one of the least important things to sort on the iPad and it means it renders content more slowly while also using more RAM. If they can do both retina + polarising, great but I would rather they prioritised the latter.

For starters, I wanna go on record saying that the idiots flying that plane were the cause of the accident, not the airplane. That's been proven by the "black boxes" that were finally recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic. In fact, the airspeed instrumentation failure was temporary, and was working just fine when they actually crashed. The navigation system was NEVER a problem. The way they "tried" to recover that airplane would have caused a crash in even the most basic airplane. It's hard to imagine what they might have been thinking, as the idiot in the right seat responded exactly opposite of how he was trained to.
Do some actual research about what happened, it'll keep you from looking quite so stupid.

I beg your pardon? We basically are saying the same thing here, the pilot couldn't fly the airplane. It doesn't matter if the instrumentation interruption was temporary or not, the pilot screwed up.

Further you can not really say that the navigation system was never a problem as it is what caused the pilot to do the things he did in the cockpit. Frankly it is kinda twisted to imply that.

Quote:

As for the glossy/matte argument... I think Apple did it right... there are people that like each category. If you like glossy, then use it as is. If you want matte, it's as simple as a "screen protector".
If it started out matte though, there'd be no way to make it glossy.

I believe Apple did it right also. However if it had started out matte I honestly believe iPad would have been a failure. The screen is critical to delivering the good experience iPad does to the majority of users.

3D devices have already failed. It's been two or three consecutive years now that the manufacturers have been pushing 3D TV's and gaming machines down everyone's throat and pretty much no one has bought into the idea yet.

Global sales from the week before christmas, courtesy of vgchartz.com:

Just my thoughts as a screenwriter here in Hollywood re: content, 3D, etc. The majority of the time one watches a movie, it is produced for the viewer to 'watch' the story, not be 'inside' the experience. In 3D, you, in essence, break the forth wall and the viewer gets immersed 'into' the film to a certain degree. So, 3D isn't necessarily better nor is all viewing enhanced by it. I do think some, relatively few, viewing experiences lend well here, but trust me.... most people enjoy being 'outside' the story, it's what we've been programmed to like, understand. Remember, it's Moving Pictures, pictures tell a story, 3D is a different animal entirely... But what do I know, I write comedy. I do agree that a lot of content coming outta Tinseltown --stinks. Sadly, 3 dimensions won't help.... My 2 cents. Peace.

Global sales from the week before christmas, courtesy of vgchartz.com:

3DS \t1,786,398\t(+19%) \t14,284,618

I wouldn't say NO ONE has bought into the idea of 3D.

my comment is really an aside to this thread - but, I think most of us understand that current forays into 3D are mere adolescent, precipitative fumblings which create market buzz for true 3D (holographic, for lack of more futuristic terminology) displays which will one day arrive upon our desks or living room walls in one form or another. Despite that, current 3D is as boring as the difference between Betamax and VHS.

an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.

Global sales from the week before christmas, courtesy of vgchartz.com:

3DS \t1,786,398\t(+19%) \t14,284,618

I wouldn't say NO ONE has bought into the idea of 3D.

All we know is they bought a handeld game console. We don't know if they bought it over a competitor because of the 3D display.

It's like saying that everything that bought a MBA or MBP this quarter bought it because of Thunderbolt. Surely only a few bought it with the idea of buying a Pegasus NAS, and a few more wishing more TB capable peripherals would come along shortly, but most surely didn't buy it for the idea of TB.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

This would be typical of Apple. Introduce a pointlessly higher-resolution screen (wasting memory and processing resources) instead of addressing the two problems that plague the current screens:

1. GLOSS. Apple continues to embarrass itself with ignorant glossy screens. Since when does a "leader" take cues from the third-tier plastic schlock being peddled at Best Buy? If you're Apple, since about five years ago. Meanwhile, E-readers clearly demonstrate the superiority of matte screens. Glossy screens are the biggest regression in the history of consumer computing.

2. Polarization angle, which makes the iPad's screen blank in portrait orientation with good (polarized) sunglasses. Most mobile applications (and vehicle mounts, like a pilot's kneeboard) call for the device to be upright (in portrait orientation); and in these environments people are often wearing sunglasses. But Apple has failed to have its manufacturer polarize the screen at the appropriate angle. Therefore, it's only visible in landscape orientation:

.

This needs to be reversed. It makes no sense to give priority to landscape orientation for sunglass-wearers. They're not watching movies with sunglasses on.

Glossy (as you call them) screens have been the single biggest advancement to LCD technology in history. Beyond that a touch screen isn't going to hold up to well if made of soft materials matte screens are made of.

Apple set the bench mark for tablets. By the way E-readers are not tablets, at least not in the sense of an iPad as the definition of a tablet device.

Glossy has been available for quite some time. It seems like a lot of earlier lcd displays had superior antiglare coatings to those available today. I don't mean laptop displays. I mean displays that used expensive panels. Later crts actually trended toward anti glare coatings and away from glossy. It'll change again at some point.

I agree with you on E-readers, but E-readers are pretty awesome for their intended purpose. The kindle gives you something where the words actually resemble printed text. It lacks glare and weird levels of contrast that can be a strain on the eyes. I actually wonder what the impact of tablets will be on phones and laptops in a few years. I feel the potential to send text/email and make calls via skype on a tablet will eventually slow repurchasing cycles on phones if the tablet really does become a laptop replacement. Note I didn't say it would make phones unnecessary. Those can be placed in the pocket and held up to the ear, but it may make the current 1-2 year upgrade cycle less appealing, especially for those who don't buy heavily subsidized phones (mostly outside the US).

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Maybe they do? What do you think pilots do in the cockpit for all those hours. Even if you get a stewardess to jump you bones, that at best only lasts for an hour or two. So they watch movies, play games or whatever and then over shoot the airport by 20 minutes. It is a reality of modern flight that pilots don't do much these days in the cockpit.

That made me laugh, especially the idea that they could continue on for an hour or two uninterrupted while flying a plane.

1. significantly lighter weight, with likely a carbon fiber shell replacing the aluminum. i use my iPad a lot. the iPad 1 was very tiring to hold for more than a few minutes. the iPad 2 is much better, but still wears you out after a while to hold it. shaving more ounces off the iPad 3 would make it much easier to use for many people.

2. better/stereo speakers. audio really does matter much of the time, and there is a lot of room for improvement here.

3. longer battery life. you can never have too much.

4. retina display. this is a virtual certainty, but is really just eye-candy, not a functional improvement. nevertheless it will be very nice to use.

5. a smooth volume slider button. the current rocker button is a pain to use. or add touch and brightness slider controls in the bezel.

6. Bluetooth 4.0. this is a high probability. the next generation of accessories will take at least a year to come to market. but connecting directly and interactively with other iOS devices without needing wifi would be something with a lot of possibilities now.

7. on-demand 4G. 4G is a battery hog and expensive. but it sure is nice to have when you really need it and free wifi is not available. as an option you could turn on when wanted, and with a pay-as-you-go plan, it would be great. (in 2-3 years 4G will become the universal standard anyway, just like 3G replaced 2G only a few years ago.)

and for the accompanying iOS 5.x update:

a. widgets. this is one really good feature of Android and Windows Phone that Apple really needs to stop being in denial about and "emulate." a wifi/3G/Blutooth widget is a must. i am so tired of having to go to the Settings over and over and over for those. and third party widgets would open up many new possibilities.